Posted on 08/11/2004 6:34:48 AM PDT by NYer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Catholic teaching has called in-vitro fertilization techniques immoral for decades. But most Catholics still haven’t heard the news.
California attorneys Anthony and Stephanie Epolite found out the hard way that in-vitro fertilization wasn’t all it’s cracked up to be. After years of marriage, and facing her 39th birthday still without a baby, Stephanie turned to a fertility clinic.
Two years and $25,000 later, the couple had nothing but frustration and embarrassment to show for the time spent on in-vitro fertilization (in-vitro fertilization).
"We were emotionally, financially and spiritually spent," Stephanie Epolite said. "The clinic did no diagnostic tests. They loaded me up with fertility medication and determined the right time for retrieval of my eggs."
But, after the retrieval and the mixing of the eggs with Anthony’s sperm in the laboratory, still no embryo developed. "In the end, they told me I just had old eggs," Stephanie said.
She wishes she had known at the beginning what she has since learned: The Catholic Church forbids fertility techniques that try to make babies outside of marital intercourse. "There is no education out there about the alternatives," she said, "so Catholics are flocking to the fertility clinics."
According to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, infertility affects more than 6 million American women and their spouses, or about 10% of the reproductive-age population. About 5% of infertile couples use in-vitro fertilization.
As to how many Catholic couples are among them, figures are hard to come by. But many Catholics seem unaware of the immorality of the procedure.
"Anecdotally, from our consultation experience here, Catholics using reproductive technologies are generally unaware of the Church’s moral teaching in this area," said Dr. Peter Cataldo, director of research with the Boston-based National Catholic Bioethics Center. "They’re not hearing it from the pulpit or elsewhere."
In her teaching on human reproduction, the Church seeks to safeguard human dignity. God wants life "to be the result of an act of love by those committed to loving each other," philosophy professor Janet Smith has written. Anything that assists the conjugal act achieve its purpose of procreation is licit; anything that substitutes for it is not.
In No. 2377, the Catechism explains why the Church opposes methods that separate marital love-making from baby-making.
"They dissociate the sexual act from the procreative act. The act which brings the child into existence is no longer an act by which two persons give themselves to one another, but one that entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children. Under the moral aspect procreation is deprived of its proper perfection when it is not willed as the fruit of the conjugal act, that is to say, of the specific act of the spouses’ union."
In successful in-vitro fertilization, a human life comes into existence outside the conjugal act and outside the womb. Conception is the result of a technician’s manipulation of "reproductive materials." The process for the collection of sperm often necessitates masturbation, which is itself immoral.
Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk, director of education at the National Catholic Bioethics Center in Philadelphia, explained that the Church teaches that the procedure is immoral for several reasons. "It undermines the meaning of sex. It violates the exclusivity of the couple’s marriage covenant," Father Pacholczyk said. "It says that it is okay to manufacture life in a laboratory as if it were a commodity, when it should be the result of human love."
"There’s also the ancillary evil of freezing embryonic humans that are later abandoned or poured down the sink if they are not useful," he added.
In addition, Father Pacholczyk noted that babies created through in-vitro fertilization have an elevated risk of birth defects.
"Studies have shown a sixfold elevated risk for in-vitro fertilization children contracting an eye disease called retinal blastoma versus normally conceived babies," he said. "In-vitro fertilization is very unnatural. You’re extracting ova from the woman, culturing them and inspecting the developing embryo in a laboratory setting. They are in a completely unnatural environment for a very long time before they are put back into the womb.
"Commercial interests offer in-vitro fertilization as standard practice," Father Pacholczyk said. "The Catholic Church is the only voice opposed to it."
But there are morally acceptable alternatives to in-vitro fertilization, and Dr. Thomas Hilgers is trying to let more Catholic couples know that.
In response to Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s 1968 encyclical reaffirming the Church’s opposition to contraception, Hilgers devoted his life to the study of human reproduction, developing the Creighton Model System of Natural Family Planning and eventually opening the Pope Paul VI Institute for the Study of Human Reproduction.
In 1991, Hilgers coined the term NaProTechnology (Natural Procreative Technology), a reproductive and gynecologic medical science that seeks to evaluate and treat a host of women’s health problems without the use of contraception, sterilization, abortion or artificial reproductive technologies, thereby making it consistent with Church teachings.
NaProTechnology first identifies the causes of infertility and then seeks to treat them. That’s not always the case at fertility clinics.
"The aim of most fertility clinics is to skip over the abnormality to try to get women pregnant," Hilgers said. "Yet when you skip over the causes, you end up dealing with them one way or another.
"It’s ludicrous to promote in-vitro fertilization as the help for the vast majority of 6.62 million with impaired fertility," he said. "When you listen to the national news and morning television shows, you think that in-vitro fertilization is the only thing available to infertile couples, yet less than 0.5% of infertile couples in the U.S. are helped by in-vitro fertilization each year."
Catholic theologians and ethicists would agree that NaProTechnology is morally acceptable, Cataldo said.
Cataldo pointed out that "certain drug therapies and egg-stimulating medications at doses that don’t have disproportionate risks for the children engendered or for the mother" also are acceptable. But other technologies, such as intrauterine insemination (IUI) and gamete intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) fall into a "gray area."
"Some moral theologians and ethicists see these techniques as assisting the conjugal act. Others see it as replacing it," he said. "Until such time as the Vatican speaks, Catholics contemplating the use of IUI or GIFT should inform themselves of both sides of the moral and theological argument and then make a decision in good conscience."
Regardless of the artificial method chosen, the cost of such techniques remains high and the success rates low. According to the 2001 Assisted Reproductive Technology Success Rates report compiled by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a survey of 384 fertility clinics showed a clinical pregnancy success rate of 32%.
In a 1990 article published in Social Justice Review, then-associate director of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ Pro-Life Secretariat Richard Doerflinger noted that a survey of in-vitro fertilization clinics discovered that half of the clinics had never had a live birth after being in business at least three years, collectively treating more than 600 women and collecting $2.5 million for their services.
"Those with the extraordinary emotions that engulf infertile couples are extremely vulnerable," Hilgers said. "They are easy prey."
Not only do natural and morally acceptable alternatives such as NaProTechnology cost far less, but they also are more successful. The Pope Paul VI Institute boasts success rates ranging from 38% to 80%, depending upon the condition being treated.
Following the Epolites’ experience with in-vitro fertilization, Stephanie learned about the Pope Paul VI Institute from a Natural Family Planning counselor. In the fall of 2000, the couple applied to the institute, gathered charts they had kept that outlined vital signs related to fertility, and underwent diagnostic testing.
As it turned out, both had reproductive issues that their previous fertility clinic had never diagnosed. Anthony’s sperm count was low, and Stephanie suffered from endometriosis and blocked fallopian tubes.
Six months later, following treatment of their conditions at the Pope Paul VI Institute and at the age of 42, Stephanie conceived naturally. Their daughter, Claire Marie, was born Oct. 31, 2002.
"At the Pope Paul VI Institute, we saw compassion, concern, help and love," Stephanie said. "They provided individualized treatment, versus the empty feeling that we felt from the fertility clinic. Whereas the fertility clinic bypasses all the laws of nature, the Pope Paul VI Institute works with the laws of nature."
Gotta let this thread go, but I wish all of you so dogmatically opposed to IVF would take a moment to consider the judgemental nature that you've taken here. I've been called selfish, sinful, my wife has been insulted, and I'm sure the abuse will continue.
Doesn't matter to me, as I will now go to lunch with my kids and wife and enjoy my day. I will also continue to work towards being a better Father and Husband and servant of God.
For those who've chosen adoption over IVF, I respect and understand your choice. However, making that choice should not be a platform to assert moral superiority over those who chose differently, or have done both.
You're lives might be richer if you weren't stalking FR for sinners to jump on. Moral superiority and presumed knowledge of God's will (whether it's your presumed knowledge or the Pope's) is a form of pride. Need we discuss the sin of pride?
One is permitted to have sexual intercourse with a perforated condom in order to collect sperm for medical examination.
Congratulations, per Goodwin's Law, you just lost the debate.
I would NEVER deny that evil. In IVF, you do not need to "throw away" ANY embryos. If some are really genetically damaged, they will simply stop dividing (this is what happens even in the woman) or not divide normally. You can put the rest back.
The fact that good results from an act does not make the act good. The end does not necessarily justify the means. For example, a child can be conceived by rape, but that does not make rape an ethical act. Therefore, the fact that children can be produced by IVF does not show that IVF is not unethical. Of course rape and IVF are not equally unethical. But the example of rape shows that it is a fallacy to argue that good results (i.e. children)justify IVF.
Also, the fact that in the natural process many fertilized eggs fail to implant does not show that it is ethically permissible to destroy fertilized eggs. That would be equivalent to arguing that since miscarriages happen, it is ethically permissible to intentionally abort one's child. Or, since many people die of starvation, it is therefore ethically permissible to starve people to death. Clearly, that kind of reasoning is mistaken. It fails to recognize the difference between a good act that happens to have an evil consequence and an evil act.
- A8
"We know what you think."
You sound like an Earth-Firster.
Why are unnatural things wrong?
"As it turned out, both had reproductive issues that their previous fertility clinic had never diagnosed. Anthony’s sperm count was low, and Stephanie suffered from endometriosis and blocked fallopian tubes."
I see nothing wrong with fixing this problem. That isn't playing God.
"Six months later, following treatment of their conditions at the Pope Paul VI Institute and at the age of 42, Stephanie conceived naturally. Their daughter, Claire Marie, was born Oct. 31, 2002."
Atleast this has a happy natrual ending. I'm happy for them.
My next door neighbor is Roman Catholic. They went the IVF route twice. If they were aware of this Catholic teaching or not would not have mattered. They WANTED kids. She had a problem with ovulation because of a deformity that could not be corrected. Their desire for children was more important than what is stated in your post. Their emotions took over.
I'm not obsessed with semen. I think the people climaxing anywhere and everywhere but where God obviously intended are the one's with the semen problem, since they (like yourself) are the ones who tend to bring it up.
Especially the effeminized males who indulge in oral and anal sex. They might as well be doing it with a guy, instead of practicing their pseudo-faggotry on their wife or girlfriend. What, after all is the difference? A mouth or an anus is the same whether on a man or woman. Sodomy is sodomy.
Are these some of your vices perhaps?
"If he wanted to become a father, he certainly could have done so prior to his treatment. He and wife were probably to busy with birth control at the time."
There's one heck of an assumption. I think Lance met his wife after his battle with cancer.
"As the article points out, also, it is trying to do an end run around normal reproduction anyway. Doctors should be trying to help couples conceive naturally."
Exactly. There is more money to be made with IVF and couples are emotional and in a hurry so IVF prospers.
I bet that every month a couple "tries" to get pg, they actually produce a fertilized egg. Anyway, I've read thousands of documents, etc. on this topic and from experience it looks like the largest embryo failure rate occurs between day3 and day6 following fertilization. That's when initial specialization occurs (into fetal and placental cell lines). The direct failure cause isn't known but probably half are genetic and the other half are "energy supply" problems. I knew a couple who had 18 beautiful embryos on day3 and only 2 made it to day5/6.
"Now, those who oppose IVF and cherish life so dearly, what would you have me do with my children? "
IS adoption not in your lexicon?
What about the embryos that don't get implanted? I think that is what is at issue. They are people who will never have a chance to be born.
"Yes it is wrong. It involves the seperation of conception from sex. It is unnatural. It also probably involved masturbation.
If he wanted to become a father, he certainly could have done so prior to his treatment. He and wife were probably to busy with birth control at the time."
Here you go ...
...Armstrong, also a victor over testicular cancer, met his wife in January 1997, just weeks after he had completed intense chemotherapy to treat an advanced stage of the disease. The two started dating in June 1997 and were married 11 months later...
http://www.thebatt.com/news/2003/09/05/PeopleInTheNews/Armstrong.Wife.Plan.To.Divorce-458562.shtml
I'm willing to bet that many IVF clinics and their clients do not operate within strict parameters to ensure all fertilized embryos get implanted. There are millions of frozen embryos that will never be used.
Can't let that one go. Read my previous posts on this topic, I also have an adopted daughter. Or do you want me to give my children up for adoption. Get a life.
How weird. I really have no interest in where people deposit their semen. You however, seem to have a fetishistic obsession with where semen goes.
Especially the effeminized males who indulge in oral and anal sex. They might as well be doing it with a guy, instead of practicing their pseudo-faggotry on their wife or girlfriend. What, after all is the difference?
It seems like you're scared that engaging in oral and/or anal sex will turn you gay. Don't worry, unless you have those type of tendencies already, it won't turn you into a poofter.
A mouth or an anus is the same whether on a man or woman.
So, then, you would have no problem French-kissing another man. A mouth is the same whether on a man or woman. Right?
Are these some of your vices perhaps?
Sure. Vice is what makes the world fun. I'm quite proud to consider myself a hedonist.
All unnatural things are not wrong, but all unnatural human acts are because we are meant to behave in certain ways and not in others.
That is the basis of natural law theory. You are free to disagree with it, I suppose, though I would wonder what you substitute into its place.
Earth-Firsters mistakenly twist this to make unnatural things (i.e. human inventions) wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong in any human invention. They are just inanimate objects and procedures. Its the uses they are put to by humans which create good and evil, right and wrong.
Right and wrong are determined by human acts, not human objects.
Boy I'd have a tough time doing THAT in a confessional.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.